Aussie alarmist columnist lets his inner “nazi” loose

Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.

Not necessarily on the forehead; I’m a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, ”Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?”

Even he seems to realize it with his next sentence which says, “On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy. “

Couldn’t agree more, which is why I find Glover’s frustration particularly amusing. Apparently as he wishes all sorts of rhetorical harm on his skeptical opponents he offers nothing – nothing- in the form of facts to back his rant. Skeptics, on the other hand, continue to present mountains of facts refuting the so-called theory he’s attempting to defend.

Nope – he goes straight to the fact-free bottom line and alarmist’s wet dream. They still want control of your money and your lives. You’ll dance to their tune and do it their way:

The tool we’ll use is a carbon tax that seeks to subtly redirect some of our choices. Cut your power bill by more than the compensation offered and you get to keep the change.

Is that really so onerous compared with a depression or war?

Well that kind of depends, Mr. Glover – if it is being run by closet fascists like you, then yes. It’ll be a subtle as any government program is – like a hammer wielding psycho in a crystal shop. You’ll go to jail if you resist or disagree. Even more irony. As it happens today is the celebration of D-Day when free men stormed ashore to stop a regime much like the one you propose. And today, their grandchildren celebrate what they did.

So you’re frustrated, Mr. Glover? The fact that you would even jokingly recommend physical harm or abuse be visited upon those who don’t believe the junk science you’ve bought into says more about you and your side of the argument than it does about them.

18 Responses to Aussie alarmist columnist lets his inner “nazi” loose

Just saw this – okay, so fair’s fair, he should put all his wealth into a trust, he can draw the minimum he needs to live over time for the next 40 years, and if at the end of that time all his dire predicting is false, he forfeits the remainder of the trust funds and they are payed out to everyone else in Australia (deniers or non-deniers).

Nothing as serious as a tattoo, or tying people to posts for the rising tide to finish off, he just needs to put his wealth where his stupid statements come from, and if he’s wrong, that’s, literally, the price HE pays. Ah yes, of course, he should be exempt from the result of his possible wrong headedness, that’s the open minded progressive way, isn’t it.

Global Warming, if only it were true, we would be so much better off for it; Longer growing seasons, lower heating bills, less clothes to buy and wear, more opportunities to exercise, so little down side. If anyone can prove AGW, I’d do everything in my power the advance the cause for warming.

I’m so happy to see that others agree with me about holding you political idiot climate deniers accountable for holding back the leftist utopia that would deal with climate change.

Arguing with such wise leftists marks you as inbred, sterile, and just like Goebbels. I decree it.

So stop with the charts and graphs and dependence on outdated concepts like “responsibility” and “math” and “evidence” and all that. You are in clear violation of the holy writ of post-modernism, which I don’t buy, except when I declare that it has been generally accepted.

See, that’s the wonder and beauty of being a post-modernist! Post-modernism gives you the ability to deny that you even believe in it if that’s necessary to advance your narrative. It wisely allows the idea of truth to be so elastic that we social science academics with godlike powers of political science get to transcend the fact that we are low-paid, overworked lackeys at a third-rate college, and manipulate the very structure of reality. Isn’t that amazing?

And of course, it helps to be well-versed in quantum physics, especially the spiritual, not-mathy parts. We then know that there are multiple worlds caused by quantum events, which means there is a version of me in another world who is chairman of the political science department at Harvard and a New York Times columnist, and I find that immensely comforting. Stop laughing!

Anyway, back to the climate stuff. The science is settled, and you are political idiots if you disagree. I just needed to re-emphasize that fact from my earlier posts. Got it? Political idiots. You should be held accountable.

I’m already working on a book that would decribe the kangaroo environmental courts that would be able to work so efficiently that millions of you dense rightie climate deniers could be accused, tried, convicted, and sentenced in just a few months. Part of my plan is to send the enforcement squads to tea parties, where you silly, climate denying political idiots tend to congregate, so we can round up hundreds of you at a time. Or maybe dozens, since those tea parties are just a small group of extremists that don’t have any real influence. Especially on the election of 2010, which was just a fluke, so shut up about how I got it so wrong. Just shut up about that.

You’ll see. Our current extreme weather is just the start. It is irrefutable evidence that the consensus is right on the settled science. Well, at least it is if you are a wise leftist steeped in the holy writ of post-modern rhetoric.

“When you have over 90% of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts.”
– Chris Christie, soon to be joining Mitt under The Bus

“So, I can’t claim to fully understand all of this. Certainly not after just a few months of study. But when you have over 90% of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role it’s time to defer to the experts. Climate science is complex though and we’re just beginning to have a fuller understanding of humans’ role in all of this. But we know enough to know that we are at least a part of the problem. So looking forward, we need to work to put policies in place that act at reducing those contributing factors.”
“Now, after extensive review with the DEP and others in my administration, our analysis of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or RGGI reveals that this program is not effective in reducing greenhouse gases and is unlikely to be in the future.”
He decked New Coal development, and he’s advocating closing older plants, and he wants to emphasize more wind development.
“So, we remain completely committed to the idea that we have as a responsibility as a state to make the environment of our state and of the world better. We have an obligation to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and we’re going to do it in the concrete ways that I’ve laid out here today. We’re not going to do it by participating in gimmicky programs that haven’t worked.”Did you read it TOM? or did you just find the headline and run with it.

I can respectfully disagree with a guy who understands that gimmicky solutions are crap – he’s announced a withdrawal from RGGI, a gimmick. And if you bothered to read it, he’s studying the issue. I’ll wager AFTER this speech, he might look again, because he’s certainly going to get bombarded by people he didn’t hear from before.

If that’s what he believes – and trust me he must “believe” it because the facts argue otherwise – then he belongs under the bus with Mitt. Oh, and “90%”? Heh … sounds like one of your wild assed numbers, Tom.

I wonder if this is an intended consequence of the dems beating the “putting science first” drum back during the Bush years and especially the ’08 campaign.

1. Politicians generally don’t know much about science (or much of anything else other than perversion, panhandling and seeking reelection)

2. The brighter ones are aware of their ignorance

3. To avoid being tarred by the dems and MiniTru (BIRM) with the “anti-science” brush that the dems have created, they’ll claim to believe anything that enough “scientists” purport to be true; it’s easier to climb on the bandwagon than it is to try to explain why it’s going in the wrong direction. Now, whether they will actually pursue the sorts of policies that those “scientists” endorse is another matter!

The sad thing is that these asswholes could have what they wanted if they just tried to sell it better. What I mean is this. I would certainly be happy to replace some taxes with a fossil fuel tax. The key word here being REPLACE.

That is because excise taxes are more efficient and less harmful to the economy than income taxes, also it could replace wasteful subsidies of solar and wind, since they would be exempt from the tax. And who knows it might have a small marginal utility in lowering pollution.

So they could have what they want if they sold it right, but that is not enough for them. It is necessary that you believe in their demon god of AGW or you are a heretic!

You know if these “climate scientists” could actually prove AGW, there might be a better reception to the message.
IPCC AR3 went through a whole section of how the increase of CO2 would cause a small temperature increase but would also add to the atmospheric content of water vapor, a much stronger GHG. It was this increase in water vapor that would cause most of the “abnormal” heating. It was to manifest itself in a warming at around 10 km altitude over the tropics. To date, there hasn’t been a single study or balloon observation that proved this hypothesis, not even a little.
My advise … get better science.